Quote:
Originally Posted by hoyacoug
I don't see how this is either ironic or pertinent to what you are quoting in my post above.
As an aside, people do need to be careful about engaging in risky behavior. Some people are reckless in their actions, causing harm to themselves and others. I am not condoning those actions. Are you under the impression that I am?
|
What I don't understand is how you equate current AIDS policies with homophobia.
Current policy funds AIDS research exponentially greater than its US impact. In fact, it receives preferential treatment, far greater than its impact would predict.
The policy is more one of Africaphobia. Because Africa is not economically beneficial to the US, we do not look to change matters there. And that is how a government should act. Individual action, including charity, should not convey transitively those attributes to government, as government poses a different function. If individuals wish to render charitable acts, that makes sense but religious injunctions are rarely instructions in good government. They are instructions in personal character.
Whenever a government tries to engage in charitable acts for a long term policy, without examination geopolitically, then we are not wise with our limited resources. All government acts of long term duration, should have ties to them.
Africa, as a resource, is NOT geopolitically important to the US interests, outside of perhaps Egypt, maybe South Africa, Namibia and Zimbabwe. If some significant resources are discovered for exploitation, then we could reexamine.